Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I will answer that, with this, yes, there are those who feel homosexuality is wrong, simply because they read it in the Bible. What they fail to understand is that once Adam and Eve disobeyed God Imperfection now has entered the world (understand that God gave us free will or there would have been no disobedience) The scriptures referring to homosexuality (this word did not exist then) called it an abomination, now this was due to the earlier command of God to be fruitful and multiply. well, we all know that same sex cannot produce offspring, (doesn't mean they can't care for them) but that is that, something to note, and this does piss me off about those Christians who do flame the gay community for being gay, is that they are hateful about the fact that gay people have sex with each other and go to the "death to gays" attitude. Fact is the law states that same sex offenders (understand context with which I am speaking) were to die the same way. If a couple who were not married had sex, they were to die by stoning, same with same sex. The Christians who cop the attitude fail to look at the laws for themselves in a "normal" sexual extension. Now, I am not gay myself, I am bi (yeah, I am dealing with that let me tell you) I am now HIV+, I contracted the disease by either a faulty medical procedure or by my own sexual actions. I tend to believe the latter. Not as punishment, but for consequences of unsafe practices. Does God still love me? Absolutely.

Now, back to what what is at hand, We are ALL imperfect, whether it be gay, straight, bi, etc. proof of this is that we make mistakes, ie. spell something wrong, add or subtract something, bad attitudes, and on and on. I am still trying to figure out for myself where I am in all this, I know a number of Gay Christians who have reconciled their faith to their life. I am still working on that. (I have been a Christian for over 30 years and the sexual/romantic side of me is still at odds, but that is another story) It could be argued, that homosexuality is the result of imperfection entering the world. I can't say that for sure. I know that I do struggle with it. (again, for me) even so, this is not a bad thing, and I am not saying anyone who is gay, or bi is imperfect (other than what I stated before) They are what they are, just as straight people are what they are. Condemning them either way, is wrong. I will no doubt get flamed for what I have said, even though I am trying to explain what my studies of the Scriptures and history has taught us. (by the way you have to examine both, to understand what the scriptures really say [context])

Anyway, that is it for now, I'm sure there will be much more posted both negative and positive concerning what I have posted. Btw, Matty is quite astute in his observations, just an observation coming from a guy who has been through a few years of seminary (Hard Core Baptist) I am now a recovering Baptist, as I am now experiencing a relationship with God, not just obeying all the rules . I hope I cleared some things up, but probably just made them more muddy. I guess we will see, from comments posted after.

It could be argued, that homosexuality is the result of imperfection entering the world. I can't say that for sure. I know that I do struggle with it. (again, for me) even so, this is not a bad thing, and I am not saying anyone who is gay, or bi is imperfect (other than what I stated before) They are what they are, just as straight people are what they are.

I cannot disagree with this more. My homosexuality is not the result of imperfection entering the world. As a Christian, I believe I was created as the man I am, a child of God. My being gay is only a facet of who I am, and my goal is to use all these facets to live my life and become the person I am.

I know far too many Christians that are gay, but because they have been taught that they are abnormal, an imperfection or some other bullshit, they choose to try and be someone they aren't. This is wrong. It is my personal belief that we are called to embrace the person that God created and live our lives completely as that person.

I have read a lot of this, and find it all interesting. I have been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous for 30 years, and HIV+ for twenty years. One of the great benefits of AA is that you can choose a god of you understanding. AA is basically a spiritual program, that gives you some principles to use in your life and stay sober and clean.I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, and became alienated in my teens because of its racism, and anti-semitism. However, I continued to search for a god for many years. At the same time, I obsessively sought a partner, which I thought would make me whole. After 3 years in psychotherapy, I lost the obsession about partners.I have continued on some sort of spiritual path, without ever deciding if there is really ONE God. I find interesting points of view everywhere. I find the Navajo concept of being in Harmony with the World very appealing. i think that The Sermon on the Mount by Jesus, gives many positive views about how to interact with other people.If I were forced to choose, I would probably be a deist. I have always paid a great attention to my dreams, and my therapist who was also in AA, told me that she thought I was one of her best dreamers, and that dreamers were very spiritual. I also find answers to problems in Literature and in cinema and the theatre.To me, the very best indication of having a spiritual life is reflected in how you treat other people. Even then, I dont think you need call it a spiritual life. If you claim to be very religious or spiritual and treat other people like crap, then you are mostly a liar.Each of us must find a way to live our lives that is meaningful to us. The main gift of HIV+, is that it drove me into psychotherapy, which I really needed. That allowed me to be released of other peoples definitions and agendas. I will think I will always be a seeker of self-knowledge and of truth. I have no idea where that will lead me.Dan Hardy

well, I thought I would get flamed and I did, apparently due to people only wanting to read what they want and NOT what was said. I said, it could be argued and I couldn't say for sure myself. i.e. I don't believe that myself, I am NOT projecting anything on anyone. It is interesting enough, the comments thus far are the result of NOT reading the WHOLE post and only taking the parts you wanted to criticize what you don't agree with, I am still trying to figure out for myself what I am dealing with for me. None of you can do this for me, no one can I figure anything out for you. We all have to do it ourselves, support and help in understanding things can be given but it is still up to the individual to figure things out.

I posted both sides of an argument, (God forbid anyone should do that!) but it seems that was overlooked. So, that tells me that there are those who are so closed minded they only want to see others as being so, That is why I said what I said about criticizing the Christians. You don't like when they criticize your life, but it is ok to do the same to them. What is right for them is not for you and vice versa. I don't agree with many Christians on many things, but there are things that I do agree with. MY faith is MY faith, and I follow God how I interpret the Bible. I am very Open minded, I am still trying, as I stated before that I am finding MY way through all this, NOT yours or how you live. And by this, I am talking about how my sexuality and romance play a part in my life. I do have people in my life currently that are willing to help me and I appreciate that and it means so much to me. Many of you may not be confused about it, but I am. Next time read the entire post and keep in mind what is being stated, and for Pete's sake look at both sides of something. You don't have to agree with it, but it helps to understand it.

Unfortunately, it would seem that we have gotten off the track of what the OP stated and I for one apologize for that, as it was not my intent. Beau, my apologies to you from me personally. There are aspects of faith being discussed, but I think it is going far afield. If you are OK with it, then I will answer further anything posed, but if you find the same to be true, then I will not continue with this particular subject matter.

To me, the very best indication of having a spiritual life is reflected in how you treat other people. Even then, I dont think you need call it a spiritual life. If you claim to be very religious or spiritual and treat other people like crap, then you are mostly a liar.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

My apologies, I didn't understand the terms, (I took hostile criticism as flaming) on other forums that would be considered flaming, I don't mind anyone disagreeing(it is a free country after all), but I think before one criticizes what is being posted, it would help to fully understand the full context of a post, would you not agree? If this was being turned into a flame war I again aplogize, that again, was not the intent, I was careful not to call names or anything like that. I am new here, I still am sorting out myself, how my life is or has changed due to my recent status, and what is going on with my own sexual/romantic issues (yes for me issues) but at the same time, I think both sides of an issue should be looked at, even if they are not agreed with. Just my opinion.

What's funny is most Christians know exactly what it is like to be an atheist, rejecting other religions as false all the time. Why choose Christianty over Islam? Every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that Christians have for being a Christian. Who's to say they're are wrong? Or Mormons? Who's to say their take on Christianity isn't the right one? What if they're right and you're wrong. You can't prove they're wrong, and if they're right, boy are you screwed.

Thanks for understanding Dusty. You might want to have a read of the Welcome Thread so you know what's what as far as the posting guidelines governing these forums go. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, it's just a FYI kinda thing.

I agree that people should try to understand the context of posts, and that's a two way street. The printed word can be a bit tricky when it comes to subtle nuances and meanings in people's statements, especially when we're more accustomed to talking things over face-to-face. For instance, anger can often be read into posts where none in fact exists.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

What's funny is most Christians know exactly what it is like to be an atheist, rejecting other religions as false all the time. Why choose Christianty over Islam? Every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that Christians have for being a Christian. Who's to say they're are wrong? Or Mormons? Who's to say their take on Christianity isn't the right one? What if they're right and you're wrong. You can't prove they're wrong, and if they're right, boy are you screwed.

Interesting (and valid) point, and one that has been expressed before. I personally choose to follow Christianity, I have checked out all of them, and find that Christianity is right for me. Others can believe what they choose, Again, a free country. But the argument can go both ways, flip what you stated. But I understand what you are saying here, and it is a valid point, but as for me I choose the Christian faith, because of my aforementioned studies. But again, valid point.

I think that we may be getting away from the original posting, but Dusty’s post deserves an answer (and no, I’m not going to ‘flame’ you personally, Dusty, just the fundamentalists’ ideas you discuss in your posting).

Quote

… there are those who feel homosexuality is wrong, simply because they read it in the Bible.

I’m sorry, but to me this is nonsense. Personally, I’ve never met anyone who feels that homosexuality is wrong 'because they read it in the Bible'. In my experience, they already think that homosexuality is wrong, and disgusting, and repellent, and the very few, select texts they choose from either the Tanakh (= Hebrew Bible) or the ‘New Testament’ appear (to them) to provide a justification for the gut-instinct revulsion they feel, as well as for whatever repressions or sanctions they wish to employ against homosexuals. That their gut-revulsion in regard to this matter is not biblically-inspired may be seen clearly in the fact that it does not seem to be apparent when it comes to other biblical prohibitions of equal—or greater—importance. So I have yet to see any fundamentalist Christians, anywhere, marching in protest against prawn cocktails (and please don't say that Jesus changed all that), short haircuts or cotton/polyester shirts. To say nothing of such key biblical issues as greed, usury or lying: all of which incur the same definition of *to'evah* (תּוֹעֵבָה = usually [but poorly] translated as ‘abomination’) in the Tanakh as is employed regarding homosexual activity. Check out what ELSE is considered to be *to'evoth* in these texts! ;-)

The same Holiness Code to which fundamentalists appeal has absolutely no problem with (for example) slavery or genocide, and Dusty’s background in scriptural scholarship will remind him that in this ancient culture, rape is wrong not because it is an unspeakable, horrendous violation of a woman, but quite simply because it lowers her value in the marriage market. Not to put too fine a point on it, in the purity and property tenets of what is usually referred to as the ‘Old Testament’, and to which fundamentalists appeal so happily in the case of homosexuality, rape is not so much a crime against a woman but against her father (if she is unmarried), or her husband: it’s actually a kind of theft, and affects not her rights but his. Does anyone believe that nowadays? Not me, for one.

I could go on … and on … and …

Quote

Once Adam and Eve disobeyed God Imperfection now has entered the world (understand that God gave us free will or there would have been no disobedience).

I respect anyone's right to his- or her deeply-held religious and cosmological convictions, but they are not knock-down arguments which can be employed in this context. For me there was no Adam and Eve, no Eden, and no Fall. Nor, as it happens, do I believe in genetically-transmitted guilt ('original sin').

Quote

The scriptures referring to homosexuality (this word did not exist then) called it an abomination, now this was due to the earlier command of God to be fruitful and multiply.

Again, no, it wasn’t. Sorry. In the world-view of the Holiness Code, in which symbolism is a key to its interpretation, the problem was with a man engaging in sexual activity in a context other than the one prescribed and sanctioned by the Law. We can understand this more clearly by comparison with other biblical proscriptions. For example, various types of creature were declared ‘unclean’ by the Law: not on hygiene grounds (though that may have been a useful by-product) but because their classification crossed over from one category to another and thus made them liminal: hence they were not ‘all of a piece’, but mixed (like the abomination of the shirt you may be wearing right now). ‘Dirt’ is matter in the wrong place: the coffee in your cup is clean; the coffee on your shirt is dirty. In the Hebrew Bible, if what you did was not where it was supposed to fit in to the Great Symbolic Scheme of things, then it wrecked everyone’s afternoon and was considered wrong. Very wrong. And human bodies were considered to be fundamentally dangerous places in that culture, needing to be controlled and legislated for by means of various purity proscriptions. It was, for example, just as much an abomination for a man to have sex with his wife during her period as it would be for him to have sex with his boyfriend.

Quote

It could be argued, that homosexuality is the result of imperfection entering the world.

Only if you believe in the concept of a ‘fall from grace’, or ‘original sin’. Again, with respect, I do not; nor do I feel bound by that world-view.

Quote

Condemning [gay people] either way, is wrong.

Hear, hear: but surely an unchallenged interpretation of the texts these people refer to will lead to exactly that, as we have seen as a result of every condemnation Christianity has issued on this subject from Apostolic times onward.

Quote

I am trying to explain what my studies of the Scriptures and history has taught us. (by the way you have to examine both, to understand what the scriptures really say [context])

I have studied both, in detail, and it does not make for particularly pleasant reading; nor, to be honest, does the 'context' always make it better. To return to my initial point, those who use their holy texts as some sort of justification for the oppression of others are to be challenged, implacably. I personally reject the religious world-view, and deny its claim to have the right authoritatively to interpret the meaning of my existence. But, of course, we all need to be open to having our views challenged. Maybe the various and mutually antipathetic Christian Churches now need to recognise that they might, just might(!) be wrong on this issue, as in the past they have been forced to accept that they have been wrong about women, the environment, anti-semitism, slavery, genocide, freedom of conscience …

Personally, I’ve never met anyone who feels that homosexuality is wrong 'because they read it in the Bible'. In my experience, they already think that homosexuality is wrong, and disgusting, and repellent, and the very few, select texts they choose from either the Tanakh (= Hebrew Bible) or the ‘New Testament’ appear (to them) to provide a justification for the gut-instinct revulsion they feel, as well as for whatever repressions or sanctions they wish to employ against homosexuals.

Let me introduce you to my sister. She has always been "gay friendly" and has gay friends and we have been and continue to be close. She was in an auto accident 10 years ago, had a spiritual awakening and became active in church. She now believes homosexuality is a sin because it is in the Bible. She treats me the same as always but feels if I don't ask Jesus for forgiveness for my sins, including that one, I'll end up in hell. She isn't really judgmental but she says she doesn't make the rules about what is a sin, God does and it is communicated through scripture.

...have you ever noticed how open-ended threads about "spirituality" or such so often end up being kind of vehement arguments between the christians and their detractors?I think it's great, if that's what you want to do, but, have ya noticed?

Let me introduce you to my sister. She has always been "gay friendly" and has gay friends and we have been and continue to be close. She was in an auto accident 10 years ago, had a spiritual awakening and became active in church. She now believes homosexuality is a sin because it is in the Bible. She treats me the same as always but feels if I don't ask Jesus for forgiveness for my sins, including that one, I'll end up in hell. She isn't really judgmental but she says she doesn't make the rules about what is a sin, God does and it is communicated through scripture.

Ask sis if she would stone an adulterer to death, that's also in the good book.

Can someone (anyone) tell me where Jesus is on record as having uttered one word against or in defence of homosexuals? In fact, he never said a thing about it.

But, he is on record with multiple messages about LOVE, especially love of our fellow beings. The hate (forget homophobia – it’s homo hate!) that some folks spew is enough to make a person retch. I wonder which is the bigger sin?

The corrupted Fundamentalist versions of so-called “Christianity” we see today bear little resemblance to Christianity’s beginnings, and are often far removed from Christ’s actual teachings to his followers.

There is nothing specifically mentioned by Jesus about Homosexuality you are correct in your assertion, and yes, Love is his key sermon material. As for Christians living like Christ, I cannot speak for others, but this one is trying to live that life, I had hoped my posts would have shown that. I have expressed both sides of an issue simply for explanation of how I deal with it and how my walk with God is. As to the sin aspect, sin is sin, God makes no identification between them as any one being greater than another despite peoples assertions otherwise. There are old law punishments on earth that are more severe than others but that had more to do with the purity aspects as mentioned earlier in another's post, (which by the way were pretty dead on but since the new law was in effect, the old laws no longer apply (in Christian faith anyway, the Jewish faith still ascribes to them, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that even if members of the Christian faith did so) For those who follow the Christian faith, sin is sin, and God's end judgement concerning them makes no difference other than where eternity is spent (mind you this is according to the Christian faith, I am not speaking concerning others) But yes, the greatest law is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength; and love your neighbors as yourself. Pity is as was pointed out not too many Christians are actually following that especially in regards to, as was mentioned earlier, the HIV aspect. Anything, it seems can be forgiven, except being gay or bi. This is an area where I differ greatly with many Christian counter parts and for quite some time through discoveries of my own concerning scripture and how we are to act towards anyone.

One of the things that always bugged me is that the Bible is supposed to be God's word but it is written by men. How do I know all the men who wrote the book where writing everything they where supposed to and not passing on their own prejudices or ideas? Or that they even heard the message right?

You remember the telephone game? It was a popular party game once upon a time. Kids sit around in a circle. The first person would whisper a few short sentences in the ear of the next person. They would have to repeat it to the person next to them, and so on around the circle. When it got to the last person, they would announce what they heard. It never, ever, came close to the original message, and was usually so distorted that it would evoke belly laughs from all the players.

It always amazes me that liberal and even moderate Christians can pick and choose what parts of the bible they wish to believe and what parts of the bible they choose to disbelieve. I guess God's okay with that.

If you don't believe Jesus had a bit of a dark side you might want to either read or reread the New Testament. Confucius was teaching the Golden Rule long before your boy Jesus came along, but he didn't feel the necessity to add this little warning.

If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

One of the things that always bugged me is that the Bible is supposed to be God's word but it is written by men. How do I know all the men who wrote the book where writing everything they where supposed to and not passing on their own prejudices or ideas? Or that they even heard the message right?

How true Wendy . We are supposed to believe that man got it right this time , only to leave us is to debate the fine points ever since

Concerning Winnaroo's question, we do believe the Bible to be the word of God. You do have a good question about it. Man on his own could not have written the Bible, for the very reason of the number of authors of it and over the time it took to write it, with the lack of errors contained in the manuscripts. There have been a number of attempts to state the opposite. There is even an internet page written by a guy who goes over verse after verse and points out the errors, only when I looked at it myself, I found the guy to be so off base it wasn't even funny. He wasn't objective at all and pointed out things without even really examining things and it was obvious that it was his opinion and not based on fact at all. There is a form of Bible out (can't think of a better term right now) called a Thompson Chain Reference, that can link every verse in the bible to at least 1 or more other verses. There are people who think the Bible cannot support science, yet it does constantly. There was a post about whether the earth was created in 6 days, there are theologians who even argue this, even though God's view of time is different then ours the Bible even states this (1 day is as a thousand years) I still think that it was a literal 6 days, since God is God and there is nothing He can't do. (except lie) Our finite minds do have a difficult time wrapping around that. Laugh if you will at faith and what it takes to believe, yet for me it takes far more to believe that there was a cosmic collision and bang we are here. That takes far more faith for me to accept that than that we were created. I hardly think an accident could come up with the complexity that exists on this planet not to mention the sad comedy of the political system that ours has come to be (oh, look an element of evolution can even exist on the planet, go figure) There are elements of evolution that I do accept, just not that we came from a primordial ooze and all of a sudden we came to be at the intelligence we came to be at now. There far more questions unanswered by evolution than there are answers. but that is going off course so I will go no further than that.

There was a study done about the Bible, and the conclusion about the lack of errors contained, stated that the chance of that being able to happen with a book written over 400 years by the number of authors (memory escapes the number but it is close to 40) is 1 in 100 Million Billion. Will have to look up where I noted that last, but it is out there.

View this as you will, but that is my explanation and again it was a very good question. Believe what you will, and I will believe what I will.

There was a study done about the Bible, and the conclusion about the lack of errors contained, stated that the chance of that being able to happen with a book written over 400 years by the number of authors (memory escapes the number but it is close to 40) is 1 in 100 Million Billion. Will have to look up where I noted that last, but it is out there.

and I guess I am asking you to do the same. errors, what isn't true, factual, and proven to be so. As I said I will have to find the source for the study. I will have to look it up. I just have to remember where I found it the first time. As for not being substantial, I think your statement was pretty much the same, you gave no example of any errors, you just stated so.

since the new law was in effect, the old laws no longer apply (in Christian faith anyway ...)

My sincere apologies for coming back at you, Dusty, but I'm afraid I can't let you get away with that one. The twenty-seven documents of the canonical Christian scriptures are stiff with references to all three sections of the Tanakh, and far from no longer applying, the 'old laws' formed the very basis both of Judean Christianity (i.e. prior to the destruction of the Temple in C.E. 70) and, where it suited them, the new churches also, both Gentile and the Jewish Diaspora. Hardly surprising, as Jesus himself was a Torah-observant Jew (and probably a Hasid to boot); James of Jerusalem most certainly was. Christianity started life as a Jewish sect, remember, and Judaism expelled them from its synagogues. Now, it may have served the purpose of the Christian missionaries to 1st-century non-Jewish communities to rewrite the script and downplay elements of the Holiness Code which were never going to go down well over theresuch as the dietary laws, and circumcisionbut the Hebrew scriptures provided the very mainframe of the early Christian discourse, and Paul was no exception. To the contrary.

The problem that primitive Christianity faced in regard to its relation to its Jewish origins was surprisingly similar to the one faced by literalist Christians today, namely: is everything in the Old Covenant abrogated by the New Covenant, unless specifically reaffirmed (New Testament strictures about homosexual activity being just one example)? Or does everything in the Law still stand unless specifically abrogated by a Dominical or Apostolic pronunciation (e.g. Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled)? Or can you mix and match, depending on where you are and whom you are trying to convert?

But whatever we may think about primitive Christianitys (perhaps we should say Christianities, there being more than one version at the time) attitude to the Torah, there is no doubt whatsoever that a singularly potent mix of the Hebrew purity- and property codes, and contemporary Platonic and Stoic thought, underpinned much of the moral programme enshrined in Christian-based secular legislation from late Antiquity onward. If indeed the old laws no longer apply for Christianity, nobody seems to have told the Christian lawmakers, whose debt to 'Old Testament' as well as 'New Testament' ethics is clear; and the biblical vision of how life should be conducted has and continues to impact on even modern and supposedly secular societies. When in the UK consensual and private same-sex activity between men was partially decriminalised by the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 (women had never been legislated against on this matter), it was pointed out that what is sinful cannot always be considered illegal. At the time (and since, of course) there were deep misgivings and regrets expressed in many quarters about this separation.

Chm02 reminds us that we have moved away from what the OP intended by his thread. I apologise if I have been part of that.

DanielMark asks:

Quote

Can someone (anyone) tell me where Jesus is on record as having uttered one word against or in defence of homosexuals?

I can, I think, address that point, if the thread is still running after the weekend (and if no-one minds me doing so!).

I am talking about the Old Law, being passed, (purity and such, as in the conversation God had with Peter about calling what God had created being unclean) In this God stated that pork and other animals previously deemed unlawful were no longer so. Also, yes the areas that were re-affirmed in the new testament are new law. Those who keep going back to the old law (in Christianity) are doing so by choice, but that doesn't make anyone else who chooses otherwise wrong for doing so. Also, don't lump all Judeo-Christian groups together in observance of the law. Some do still follow old law, but they not required as I said before it is a choice. I choose to follow the new law as I had said before, and no I am not ignoring anything, I am following the scriptures according to my convictions and I really don't care what anyone else does.

Actually no it is not rife with errors. can you prove any of them? I mean actual errors, not because one believes something isn't true?

And from here stems the fundamental problem (and power) of religion. It is generally not falsifiable. To believe in it, or to have 'faith', you have to accept a whole raft of propositions that are simply not falsiable.

edited to add: I will respond to the question of spirituality and HIV when I have some time at home tonight.

I'm curious, how do we know there are no errors? And I'm not sure what that means anyway.

Would it be errors like Job had 3 daughters and not 4? Did Moses say the exact phrase "come thou with us, and we will do thee good"? Instead of him shruging and saying if you want to come, come.

Aside from having faith in what was written I dont know how anyone would really know.

you kind of made my point right there. Can any of the "errors" that the poster said the Bible be rife with, be proven? Other than examples you gave, which I know you were asking as a matter of the question, Just because someone doesn't believe something written in the Bible doesn't make it "rife" with errors. Show me historical errors, errors within the texts for each other etc.

By the way, I did make a mistake with my reference to the 1 in 100million Billion statement. That had to do with the Old Testament references that refer to Jesus not being in reference to him. In other words, the Old Testament Prophecies referring to the messiah NOT being Jesus were 1 in 100million Billion. This is from the book "Evidence that demands a Verdict" written by Josh McDowell.

By the way, I did make a mistake with my reference to the 1 in 100million Billion statement. That had to do with the Old Testament references that refer to Jesus not being in reference to him. In other words, the Old Testament Prophecies referring to the messiah NOT being Jesus were 1 in 100million Billion. This is from the book "Evidence that demands a Verdict" written by Josh McDowell.

Perhaps you may wish to start a new thread, dusty, as this line of discussion really has nothing to do with spirituality and Hiv - the topic at hand.

yeah, I hate the bunny trails myself, I tried to head that off at the pass in a previous post, but seems was unsuccessful. Not sure if I want to start another thread, seems doctrine would not be a good thread to do, not to mention all the different denominations and where they would go. Again, this I was trying to avoid as I said in a previous post.

That being said, I think that what I should say about spirituality and HIV is that I think that Faith and Spirituality is important in some form, if one is willing to ascribe to one as it does help when dealing with a disease such as this. Just as one comes to a forum such as this for support, faith and spirituality are just as important for support. If it weren't for my faith, I am not sure where I would be even before HIV. HIV can be too much for people to deal with on their own, otherwise if that were not the case, these forums more than likely wouldn't exist. Just as people in a like situation need each other to lean on and seek advise, the same can be said of faith. I had my faith before HIV and I still have it, I have found a church that helps me deal with my HIV and my faith.

Where as I see spirituality as more akin to a sense of oneself. I tend to see spirituality and faith as been oxymorons, as faith (a belief not based in proof) is to me a delusion (a false belief) as it is not supported by any proof. (edited to ad: if one is delusional they do not have a well developed sense of self, unless of course they are able to see and acknowledge the delusion)I fulfill my need/desire for group ritual that someone mentioned previously by going to watch football games.

As for HIV and spirituality, I have developed a much better sense of self since my diagnosis. I took 3 months out in my first year and wandered the globe thinking about things, putting things into perspective, and truly learning to love me just the way I am.

I would have to disagree about faith not being based on proof, there is quite a bit of proof, so I don't think that people that have faith are deluded. but, let's keep this on the trail that was originally intended, I should say that I respectfully disagree with you on this point. Besides, I would rather have faith than not.

Wow. This thread sure has been active today. A lot of catch up reading to do! I got through most of it, but would like to go over it again more carefully - there is a lot to digest.

What I would like to do right now, though, is to applaud all of you for navigating this sensitive, deeply personal and often perilous subject in such a fashion that it is still open this far into it. It may totally crash and burn in the next 5 posts - I dunno - but that it managed as civilly and insightfully this long deserves a nod of recognition, I think.

And it's beaubrent's tread, so I defer to him...but I don't think this thread has really gone "off topic" at all - it's just delved a little more closely into one area, but I still don't see it as having been truly highjacked myself. And I say that because I think the discussion of christianity and homosexuality bears directly on spirituality and HIV. (Sort of as I said before about how confusion and esteem issues directly resulting from these teachings about gays helped launch me on to some of the more self-destructive behaviors that led me here, not to mention the (especially early) response the christian world had to those who became infected and sick.) I hope you can see what I am trying to say...busy day and kinda tired.

Still, I have another post for this thread that I would like to contribute - and it would be the one for me that would most directly answer the original post from my life experience. Personally, I hope that this thread maintains long enough for me to get it up here. Youth Pastor Tim did a great deal of meditating on this one earlier today.

What they fail to understand is that once Adam and Eve disobeyed God Imperfection now has entered the world (understand that God gave us free will or there would have been no disobedience)

Imperfection? After nine billion years of failed attempts at random molecular combinations, somewhere in the universe one of these attempts succeeded, and resulted in the mysterious and beautiful planet we now inhabit: a place teeming with life, life constructed with the obvious intent to interact sensually with its environment.

Tactile response is the primary sense through which humans discover their world; emotions are the primary expressions humans employ to communicate their reactions to these sensual discoveries -- and these reactions will be as unique as the number of this planet's inhabitants. Every part of me, every part of you, every part of each one of us exists for this purpose. To claim that because some of us are built (by "the creator," if you must believe in one) with "imperfect" emotional expressions of our sensuality denies our very existence.

Nothing in nature can be described as "perfect" or "imperfect." Such dualisms serve only to unnaturally divide people. Certainly, if there were a creator, he/she/it must now be completley ashamed of how the created have perverted the creator's diversity.